Are "Dallas Buyers Club" critics guilty of "respectability homophobia"?

[serious crayons]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2013/11/07/dallas_buyers_club_gay_representation_and_history_is_rayon_a_pathetic_queer.html

Nov. 7 2013 4:22 PM
Does Dallas Buyers Club Have a "Pathetic Queer" Problem? 
By J. Bryan Lowder

Dallas Buyers Club is not a perfect movie. In its portrayal of Ron Woodroof—a homophobic, hard-living roughneck who, after learning he has AIDS in the mid-1980s and finding the FDA’s slow progress on treatment unsatisfactory, organizes a “buyers club” to smuggle experimental drugs in from around the world for himself and anyone able to pay the $400 monthly “subscription fee”—it leans a bit heavily on a hokey (and historically inaccurate) rodeo metaphor to symbolize Woodroof’s struggle. Also, its realization of characters within the medical establishment is perhaps a bit flat. Overall, though, I have to agree with Slate’s Dana Stevens: As a portrait of a complicated man who finds himself caught in an extreme historical moment, Dallas Buyers Club “feels right just as it is.”

What the movie does not feel, at all, is somehow problematic with regard to its treatment of queer characters or the larger AIDS crisis; and yet, some strange complaints in that vein have emerged. In a weirdly hostile review in Deadspin, for instance, Will Leitch dismissed DBC as “gay history for straight people,” while referring incorrectly to Jared Leto’s character, Rayon, as Ron’s “best-pal gay” who plays it “three or four octaves too high.” Rayon is a transgender straight woman, of course, and, given the relative nuance of Leto’s portrayal of her, one wonders how “low” a person’s gender performance octave needs to be to garner Leitch’s approval.

But correct identities aside, the larger argument that DBC somehow represents an incomplete, dumbed-down, or more palatable version of “gay history” is gaining traction. Most notable are a pair of articles by Daniel D’Addario of Salon.

In the first, he accuses the movie of being anti-science in its praise of the buyers club model and wholesale condemnation of the FDA, going on to argue that “its focus is so laserlike upon a particular character, and a particular time period, as to create a simplistic impression of a remarkably complicated time.” I might concede the first point if I didn’t think it is always useful to remind people that the pristine “scientific method” (of which D’Addario seems so protective) is very often corrupted by the very fallible people executing it—as was absolutely true in the case of early AIDS research. But the second point, that the movie oversimplifies and perhaps focuses on the wrong players in the AIDS crisis, is just bizarre. Aren’t narrative films, especially about sweeping historical events, only ever effective when they focus on particular characters and time periods to “create a simplistic impression of a remarkably complicated time?”

Indeed, the very conventions of the genre require that kind of pruning; if you want the thoroughness of a documentary, stick with How to Survive a Plague (which, incidentally, Leitch and D’Addario both hold up to DBC as if the comparison were somehow useful). By contrast, DBC is clearly a limited character study, and the character in question happens to be straight, homophobic, and interested in the gay community only insofar as they represent a large part of his customer base. As a member of that community, it was certainly upsetting to see family treated with such utilitarian coolness—but it would never have occurred to me to let that discomfort color my judgment of the movie on the terms it sets out.

Let’s be clear: Those terms are not about heroism or even really about a particularly sympathetic portrayal of gay people. Though the real Ron Woodroof eventually did become involved in some amount of pro-gay activism, the character we have here never “grows” much beyond a businesslike tolerance of his customers. All of his actions are performed in the service of self-preservation, and for that, he remains at the end of the film an unsettlingly and compellingly ambivalent figure. Even the warming of his relationship with Rayon—particularly in a grocery store scene in which Ron defends his business partner against a former friend’s insults—is clearly due to the specificity of that (again mostly business) relationship: We’re in the land of kinship here, not ideological enlightenment.

And speaking of Rayon, is she really as pathetic as D'Addario suggests in his second article, constructed primarily of a highly ungenerous reading of Jared Leto’s (irrelevant, in my opinion) comments to the press? It’s true that Rayon “is entirely self-destructive, continuing to abuse intravenous drugs long after diagnosis.” But does this mean that we can, as D’Addario insists, only understand her in terms of “pity, mild revulsion, and distance?” That sounds like a personal hang-up to me. To the contrary, I left the film feeling that Rayon was one of the most subtly and convincingly realized queer characters I had ever seen: She possesses, like most people, a mix of virtues and vices; she has love in her life, both from a boyfriend and, in their own, very queer way, from Woodroof; and her motivations are nearly as self-interested as his are, albeit softened by her relationship to the gay community. In fact, this particular composite character’s presence in DBC is the right fit precisely because of her tragic flaws—a more noble or “presentable” queer person would never have been interested in working with Woodroof in the first place.

In the end, this is really a question of representation: When a particular historical event is thought to “belong” to a certain group, how much freedom do artists have in portraying it? Must movies or other art about AIDS always focus on gay people? Woodroof was a real person who suffered, fought, and eventually died from the disease. He was also straight. Is it then categorically “wrong” or a waste of resources to present his story while countless others remain untold? Similarly, Rayon, though not biographically real, is a compelling queer character. But, with the stakes of representation seemingly so steep, are we no longer allowed to appreciate queer characters who happen to be sad or messy or living their lives “three or four octaves too high”?

I hope that’s not the case, not least because it smacks of an insidious breed of “respectability” homophobia. But more important, the notion that art about AIDS or any other fraught topic must meet a list of pre-determined political criteria—lest it be deemed “deeply flawed”—sounds not only chilling, but also terribly boring. It should go without saying that Ron Woodroof’s story does not stand in for the full experience of the AIDS crisis, gay or straight; to criticize it for failing to do what no single story ever could is downright bullheaded. 

J. Bryan Lowder is the assistant editor of Outward, Slate’s LGBTQ section, and the editorial assistant for culture.

[delalluvia]

Good article.  I liked this especially.

When a particular historical event is thought to “belong” to a certain group, how much freedom do artists have in portraying it? Must movies or other art about AIDS always focus on gay people? Woodroof was a real person who suffered, fought, and eventually died from the disease. He was also straight. Is it then categorically “wrong” or a waste of resources to present his story while countless others remain untold?

I don't agree that historical events 'belong' to anyone nor does art.

[milomorris]

Good article.  I liked this especially.

When a particular historical event is thought to “belong” to a certain group, how much freedom do artists have in portraying it? Must movies or other art about AIDS always focus on gay people? Woodroof was a real person who suffered, fought, and eventually died from the disease. He was also straight. Is it then categorically “wrong” or a waste of resources to present his story while countless others remain untold?

I don't agree that historical events 'belong' to anyone nor does art.

Exactly. The world has been effected by AIDS, and there a millions of stories to tell from millions of perspectives. Yes, the gay community might have been most heavily impacted in the beginning...at least in the West. Nowadays its the under-served minority communities in the US where HIV infections are growing. China and India are seeing rising infection rates too. And let's not forget about countries in Africa where the disease has had a foothold since the very beginning of the epidemic.

[milomorris]

But, with the stakes of representation seemingly so steep, are we no longer allowed to appreciate queer characters who happen to be sad or messy or living their lives “three or four octaves too high”?

I hope that’s not the case, not least because it smacks of an insidious breed of “respectability” homophobia.

No matter what group we're talking about: blacks, latinos, sexual minorities....what have you...there are always going to be people who are dissatisfied with media depictions of those who might be considered too far from the center of that group. I remember the days when professional-class blacks would cringe and complain at characterizations of drug dealers, and ghetto life. That element is still present in the media, but nowadays, the media presents a more balanced diet of African-Americans. So its not surprising to see the same thing going on with sexual minorities. Because--as it was with blacks--any depiction at all was relatively scare, sexual minorities naturally want to be depicted in the best light possible. Knowing that is not always realistic, I think that sexual minorities can survive the cringe phase, and be hopeful that balance will come over time.

And I don't buy the “respectability homophobia" concept. Just as there were white people who were (and still are) able to distinguish between differing types of blacks without being called racist, heteros should be able to distinguish between differing types of sexual minorities without being labeled "homophobic."

[serious crayons]

And I don't buy the “respectability homophobia" concept. Just as there were white people who were (and still are) able to distinguish between differing types of blacks without being called racist, heteros should be able to distinguish between differing types of sexual minorities without being labeled "homophobic."

I'm not sure I get your point. White people should distinguish, and heterosexuals should distinguish. But of course there are lots of people in both groups who can't or won't, possibly because they aren't exposed to a wide enough range of types in whatever minority group it is. And a lot of public exposure these days inevitably comes from the media.

So intelligent, well-informed people distinguish. When the article refers to "respectability homophobia" it's talking about people who don't just distinguish, but also believe only the "respectable" version should be presented in the media. They might argue that it's to educate the aforementioned ignorant white or straight people who don't know any better.

It's an understandable and well-intentioned motivation, but in finding the less "respectable" version of whatever group unfit for media presentation, they're also expressing bias and, if in a position to do so, practicing discrimination against that group of people. Lack of prejudice means being able to accept flawed people as well as perfect ones, and not thinking that either one represents the group as a whole.

[milomorris]

I'm not sure I get your point. White people should distinguish, and heterosexuals should distinguish. But of course there are lots of people in both groups who can't or won't, possibly because they aren't exposed to a wide enough range of types in whatever minority group it is. And a lot of public exposure these days inevitably comes from the media.

So intelligent, well-informed people distinguish. When the article refers to "respectability homophobia" it's talking about people who don't just distinguish, but also believe only the "respectable" version should be presented in the media. They might argue that it's to educate the aforementioned ignorant white or straight people who don't know any better.

It's an understandable and well-intentioned motivation, but in finding the less "respectable" version of whatever group unfit for media presentation, they're also expressing bias and, if in a position to do so, practicing discrimination against that group of people. Lack of prejudice means being able to accept flawed people as well as perfect ones, and not thinking that either one represents the group as a whole.

I'm not sure I get your point. White people should distinguish, and heterosexuals should distinguish. But of course there are lots of people in both groups who can't or won't, possibly because they aren't exposed to a wide enough range of types in whatever minority group it is. And a lot of public exposure these days inevitably comes from the media.

So intelligent, well-informed people distinguish. When the article refers to "respectability homophobia" it's talking about people who don't just distinguish, but also believe only the "respectable" version should be presented in the media. They might argue that it's to educate the aforementioned ignorant white or straight people who don't know any better.

It's an understandable and well-intentioned motivation, but in finding the less "respectable" version of whatever group unfit for media presentation, they're also expressing bias and, if in a position to do so, practicing discrimination against that group of people. Lack of prejudice means being able to accept flawed people as well as perfect ones, and not thinking that either one represents the group as a whole.

To clarify my point, I would say that I disagree that accepting the flawed individuals is required. You see, the prejudice is no longer centered on the race or sexual orientation, but rather on the character/behavioral/etc. flaw in question. Once one removes race or sexual orientation as the deciding factor, the decision can no longer be called racist or homophobic.

[serious crayons]

To clarify my point, I would say that I disagree that accepting the flawed individuals is required. You see, the prejudice is no longer centered on the race or sexual orientation, but rather on the character/behavioral/etc. flaw in question. Once one removes race or sexual orientation as the deciding factor, the decision can no longer be called racist or homophobic.

If we were talking about whether you like somebody, then of course you would be entitled to make that judgment based on a potentially infinite number of factors.

But what this article is about -- and what I meant when I said "accept flawed people" -- is whether it's OK to show flawed people as members of minorities in movies (whether DBC is "problematic with regard to its treatment of queer characters," and more generally about "the notion that art about AIDS or any other fraught topic must meet a list of pre-determined political criteria").

Walter White is a flawed person. But nobody's complaining that Breaking Bad is "problematic with regard to its treatment of straight white men" or that Walter White unfairly makes white men as a group look like ruthless drug kingpins.

With minority groups, people are understandably more sensitive, because their media portrayals have been scarcer. But this writer is arguing that viewers should get over their political correctness and accept characters of all kinds -- not as best friends, necessarily, but as valid characters.

In short, you may or may not like people like Rayon for whatever reason. But the author is arguing that those aren't valid reasons to say filmmaker should not make a movie featuring Rayon as a major character because it's "bad for the gays."


 

[x-man]

I wonder if it might be helpful to look at the Lowder article as being in 2 parts.  In the first, he pretty well makes his point that DBC should and can be seen as accomplishing its purpose in presenting real characters living out difficult lives, and this being shown in an acceptable way regardless of how PC it may be.  But then Lowder slips in the final paragraph about "respectability" homophobia which has caused all the fuss.  I think serious crayons has summed up Lowder's second point very well:

So intelligent, well-informed people distinguish. When the article refers to "respectability homophobia" it's talking about people who don't just distinguish, but also believe only the "respectable" version should be presented in the media. They might argue that it's to educate the aforementioned ignorant white or straight people who don't know any better.

It's an understandable and well-intentioned motivation, but in finding the less "respectable" version of whatever group unfit for media presentation, they're also expressing bias and, if in a position to do so, practicing discrimination against that group of people. Lack of prejudice means being able to accept flawed people as well as perfect ones, and not thinking that either one represents the group as a whole.

Where I part company with her is her sentence "With minority groups people are understandably more sensitive because their media portrayals have been scarcer."  I wonder if "scarcer" really captures the entire issue.  I fear that some people will see "respectability homophobia" as focusing on questions of artistic authenticity or aesthetic distaste for stereotypical portrayals of LGBTs on some very intellectualized level.  I don't think that is why many of us are apprehensive when confronting portrayals of our LGBT brothers and sisters as troubled, desperately unhappy, freaks.  These portrayals are "scarcer" as serious crayons says, but this scarcity leads other people to generalize these specific incidences to LGBT people in general.  This, in turn, leads to an acceptance of homophobia when these people, I might as well say it, when many straight people, make judgements about equal marriage, gay-bashings, and whether or not the situation for us now in Eastern Europe, Africa, the Arab World, much of Asia, and parts of the US is really all that much to be worried about.

Lowder seems to be trying to go beyond this kind of paranoia--although many of us would say "legitimate concern."  He is asking for a great deal of trust on the part of the groups affected, and contains the optimistic view that we are all headed into the "broad uplands of a brighter tomorrow."

Serious crayons' point that "in finding the less 'respectable' versions of whatever group unfit for media presentation, they're also expressing bias, and if in a position to do so, practicing discrimination against that group of people," is at first compelling, but are the right words being used here?  "If in a position to do so, practicing discrimination?"  Hold on a minute.  First of all, they are NOT in a position to do so, and being 5% of the population, never will be, and more importantly, any such discrimination you might imagine would be  a reluctance to show LGBTs as stereotypical and clownlike disgusting perverts, and in a  very real way to try to avoid the actual discrimination that leads to the dangers we all know really exist out there for all of us in that community.

In this thread, comparisons and contrasts have been made with gays and blacks.  I think a more proximate comparison would be between LGBTs and Jews.  The Holocaust was 60 years ago; times have changed supposedly.  But would any serious person complain about a Jew taking offence at seeing Jews being portrayed on the screen as deceitful, money-grubbing "kikes?"

I have toned down my rhetoric regarding straight people, but still I ask you to be more patient with LGBT people who do not think it is time yet to be so forthcoming about the imperfections we all certainly do know exist within our community.  Not all of us are as confident as Lowder seems to be.

[serious crayons]

Where I part company with her is her sentence "With minority groups people are understandably more sensitive because their media portrayals have been scarcer."  I wonder if "scarcer" really captures the entire issue.  I fear that some people will see "respectability homophobia" as focusing on questions of artistic authenticity or aesthetic distaste for stereotypical portrayals of LGBTs on some very intellectualized level.  I don't think that is why many of us are apprehensive when confronting portrayals of our LGBT brothers and sisters as troubled, desperately unhappy, freaks.  These portrayals are "scarcer" as serious crayons says, but this scarcity leads other people to generalize these specific incidences to LGBT people in general.  This, in turn, leads to an acceptance of homophobia when these people, I might as well say it, when many straight people, make judgements about equal marriage, gay-bashings, and whether or not the situation for us now in Eastern Europe, Africa, the Arab World, much of Asia, and parts of the US is really all that much to be worried about.

I don't really understand this, I guess. But I will say that I don't think I've seen many media portrayals of LGBT characters as "troubled, desperately unhappy freaks." Could we be talking about a sort of dated genre? When I think of stereotyped media portrayals of LGBT characters, I think of "Will and Grace" -- glib, funny, nonserious. Perhaps those portrayals are offensive in themselves, but they're a long way from "The Boys in the Band."

But x-man, are you saying you DO find Rayon's character unacceptable? When I first posted this article, I hadn't seen the movie. Now I have, and I can say that I found Rayon's character very sympathetic, and an appealing foil to the Ron Woodruff character. I don't think the movie would have been the same without her. Yes, she's a drug addict, but I wouldn't describe her as a freak.

Serious crayons' point that "in finding the less 'respectable' versions of whatever group unfit for media presentation, they're also expressing bias, and if in a position to do so, practicing discrimination against that group of people," is at first compelling, but are the right words being used here?  "If in a position to do so, practicing discrimination?"  Hold on a minute.  First of all, they are NOT in a position to do so, and being 5% of the population, never will be, and more importantly, any such discrimination you might imagine would be  a reluctance to show LGBTs as stereotypical and clownlike disgusting perverts, and in a  very real way to try to avoid the actual discrimination that leads to the dangers we all know really exist out there for all of us in that community.

By "if in a position to do so" I meant if they make films, write books, etc. People, gay or straight, who are in a position to present LGBT characters in the media.

In this thread, comparisons and contrasts have been made with gays and blacks.  I think a more proximate comparison would be between LGBTs and Jews.  The Holocaust was 60 years ago; times have changed supposedly.  But would any serious person complain about a Jew taking offence at seeing Jews being portrayed on the screen as deceitful, money-grubbing "kikes?"

Whoa!! Are we even still talking about DBC here? It's hard to imagine anyone seeing it and thinking of Rayon's character as a "clownlike disgusting pervert" or the gay equivalent of a "deceitful, money-grubbing 'k---.'" Aside from being a drug addict, she's appealing, funny, dignified, smart, highly sympathetic. She is shown winning over two straight people, one of whom is a blatant homophobe. She's hardly the gay version of Dickens' Fagin.

I get the feeling you're thinking of something different from what this conversation was initially about. We're talking about whether movies should occasionally contain warts-and-all portrayals of gay characters, not insidious homophobic propaganda.

[Jeff Wrangler]

Unfortunately "warts and all" can sometimes look like "insidious homophobic propaganda," but that's life, I guess.

[milomorris]

Unfortunately "warts and all" can sometimes look like "insidious homophobic propaganda," but that's life, I guess.

Correct. That's why we black folks had such problems with the blacksploitation movies of the 70s.

[serious crayons]

Unfortunately "warts and all" can sometimes look like "insidious homophobic propaganda," but that's life, I guess.

I guess. And minorities, by the very nature of being in a minority, will probably always be more sensitive to how they're portrayed. But the sooner a group can move toward having a wide spectrum of characters out there the better, I would think. Maybe it's a chicken-and-egg thing, though; the more tolerance in mainstream society the less big a deal a flawed minority character is, because mainstream viewers recognize that it's about one individual, not everyone in the entire group.

I always remember Rupert Everett's quote when he came out and was asked whether he was afraid that from now on he'd only get cast as gay characters. He said if he were that would be OK because "We aren't, contrary to popular opinion, all alike."

[x-man]

Perhaps all that you ask of me here is to tidy up a few loose ends regarding the points I was trying to make.  To do much more would be to try to answer the question in the old saying, "Why hunt last year's wolf?"

"Are we still even talking about DBC?" you ask.  No, the final 2 paragraphs of the Lowder article make clear he is moving beyond DBC to question media attention in general to the problem.  That is where I was taking the argument, and replies by other BetterMostians seem to recognize this and accept its legitimacy.

I don't really understand this, I guess. But I will say that I don't think I've seen many media portrayals of LGBT characters as "troubled, desperately unhappy freaks."

You ask if by using words like LGBT portrayals of "troubled, desperately unhappy freaks" I am pointing to an "outdated genre."  Such portrayals in films like Tea and Sympathy, Compulsion, Boys in the Band, Cruising, and the like are, I agree, scarcer these days.  But I would suggest that the genre of stereotypical portrayals of LGBT characters may now be more subtle, but definitely not gone.  To many people, LGBT characters on Will and Grace, or, say, 1 Girl 5 Gays, might be "glib, funny, nonsense," but they aren't quite as funny to us.  And for those just looking for ammunition to use for their homophobia, programs like that certainly do provide it.

I guess. And minorities, by the very nature of being in a minority, will probably always be more sensitive to how they're portrayed. But the sooner a group can move toward having a wide spectrum of characters out there the better, I would think. Maybe it's a chicken-and-egg thing, though; the more tolerance in mainstream society the less big a deal a flawed minority character is, because mainstream viewers recognize that it's about one individual, not everyone in the entire group.

I can disagree with very little here, but at their heart, your remarks are the way things ought to be, not the way they indeed are.  We in the LGBT community would gladly move on, and know it would be better, as you suggest.  But the real world keeps pulling us back and rubbing our faces in it.  You say "mainstream viewers recognize that it's about one individual, not everyone in the entire group."  This last sentence of yours is the very core of the differences that have always separated us in postings about this subject, going back to "Should Straight Actors Play Gay Characters."  I suggest that mainstream viewers indeed do NOT recognize that offensive portrayals of minority groups are "about one individual, not everyone in the entire group."  The mainstream is not made up of the thoughtful, educated people you seem to have in mind.  Few people read essays and books by writers addressing this issue, most are not thoughtful, not educated, and not likely to be given to changing their minds about how repellent and dangerous the LGBT community is to their world.  I am not talking about people in our own social circles and neighbourhoods, but in the world as a whole.  For LGBTs, news from that world is increasingly alarming.  Do you think many in the mob surrounding the Law Courts in Sierra Leone demanding death to all gays, have watched BBM or read Edmund White?  Do Putin, his cronies in the Russian Parliament, and, it seems, the bulk of the Russian public, bother with reasoned treatments of LGBT culture?

I suggest that while we in NA and Western Europe are comforted by the increasing acceptance of equal marriage and the increasing acceptance that implies,, the situation in the rest of the world is getting ominously worse.  Are these doings being reported in US media?  They certainly are in Canada.  The less optimistic side of me says that the mainstream is more like the coach of the Utah Jazz who did not want his team to be watching BBM, "that fag movie."

I think you are pointing to a liberal, enlightened world that only exists in pockets in parts of the world. I have the suspicion that the very reason there is an increase in homophobic outrages across the world is because of LGBT gains closer to home.  Perhaps all that people in the more enlightened part of the world can do is to straighten up our own act.  The new champions of LGBT rights demand nothing less than full equality.  Stereotypical portrayals of LGBTs on screen do not help in that fight, and should be exposed whenever they appear, not celebrated as some new kind of progress in accepting all people "warts and all."

[serious crayons]

You ask if by using words like LGBT portrayals of "troubled, desperately unhappy freaks" I am pointing to an "outdated genre."  Such portrayals in films like Tea and Sympathy, Compulsion, Boys in the Band, Cruising, and the like are, I agree, scarcer these days.  But I would suggest that the genre of stereotypical portrayals of LGBT characters may now be more subtle, but definitely not gone.  To many people, LGBT characters on Will and Grace, or, say, 1 Girl 5 Gays, might be "glib, funny, nonsense," but they aren't quite as funny to us.  And for those just looking for ammunition to use for their homophobia, programs like that certainly do provide it.

I disagree with this. I realize that the characters in "Will and Grace" -- which I only saw once or twice -- are problematic. (I'm not familiar at all with "1 Girl 5 Gays.") But I don't think it turned anyone's attitude toward gay people worse -- I think it either reinforced their existing attitudes or, at best, made people who were slightly homophobic (but not so much that they wouldn't watch the show) think of gay people as funny agreeable folks to invite into their living rooms once a week. It might have made gay men look silly, but it didn't make them look ominous or deviant or horrible.

Someone here once posted an old "educational" video that must have dated back to about the time when I was in grade school or maybe a few years earlier. It was intended to warn children about the dangers of "The Homosexual" who would lurk in his car outside the playground and then follow little Billy home and try to lure him into the car. Some of the people enjoying "Will and Grace" no doubt grew up with that sort of image.

I can disagree with very little here, but at their heart, your remarks are the way things ought to be, not the way they indeed are.

Agreed.

I suggest that mainstream viewers indeed do NOT recognize that offensive portrayals of minority groups are "about one individual, not everyone in the entire group."  The mainstream is not made up of the thoughtful, educated people you seem to have in mind.

The mainstream is made up of people who live in the -- how many states is it now? -- legalizing same-sex marriage, a concept that would have been unthinkable in this country even a decade ago, let alone back in the days of the educational video I mentioned above.

  Few people read essays and books by writers addressing this issue, most are not thoughtful, not educated, and not likely to be given to changing their minds about how repellent and dangerous the LGBT community is to their world.  I am not talking about people in our own social circles and neighbourhoods, but in the world as a whole.  For LGBTs, news from that world is increasingly alarming.  Do you think many in the mob surrounding the Law Courts in Sierra Leone demanding death to all gays, have watched BBM or read Edmund White?  Do Putin, his cronies in the Russian Parliament, and, it seems, the bulk of the Russian public, bother with reasoned treatments of LGBT culture?

No, I don't think the mob in Sierra Leone has read Edmund White. But I bet they aren't big followers of "Will and Grace," and for that matter I doubt they've seen "The Boys in the Band." Those attitudes aren't shaped by problematic portrayals out of Hollywood. They're shaped by conservative religions and ancient prejudices and ignorance, none of which stem from Western entertainment products.

I suggest that while we in NA and Western Europe are comforted by the increasing acceptance of equal marriage and the increasing acceptance that implies,, the situation in the rest of the world is getting ominously worse.

I'm not sure whether they're getting worse, or whether we're just more aware of and outraged by what's going on elsewhere because things are getting better here. I'll grant you that it's some cultures probably do become more vehemently conservative as a reaction against what they see as dangerous Western values -- in regard to women as well as gay people, BTW.

  The less optimistic side of me says that the mainstream is more like the coach of the Utah Jazz who did not want his team to be watching BBM, "that fag movie."

The mainstream in the U.S. -- or 53% of it, anyway, at last count -- supports marriage equality. That's the only measure I can think of offhand,  aside from the sort of media portrayals we've been talking about, which have gone from "The Homosexual" video to "Cruising" to "Will and Grace" to the new HBO series "Looking."

Is 53% great? No, it is not. But it's a hell of a lot better than whatever the polls would have showed 10 years ago.

As for the Utah Jazz coach, he would have said the exact same thing 20 years ago. The difference is you never would have heard about it then, because nobody would have thought it particularly odd or disturbing. Nowadays the "Duck Dynasty" guy gets fired from TV for saying ugly things about gay people.

Stereotypical portrayals of LGBTs on screen do not help in that fight, and should be exposed whenever they appear, not celebrated as some new kind of progress in accepting all people "warts and all."

Whoaaaa. When I said "warts and all" I wasn't talking about stereotypical portrayals. Warts and all means portraying people as they actually are -- individuals with a mixture of virtues and flaws, not cookie cutters standing in for prejudices.

I guess I have to go back to asking exactly what portrayals we're talking about here. The movies you listed above are all decades old. "Will and Grace" is off the air. We started out talking about DBC, but you have established that we no longer are. So just what are we talking about? Aside from "Will and Grace," what portrayals bother you, among those that have appeared onscreen in the past 10 years or so?

[x-man]

Before I look at your points individually, I suggest that your argument in your last posting is something like this:  If we aren't talking about DBC then what ARE we talking about?  This is a sort of rhetorical question based on 4 points:
1) LGBT portrayals in the media have advanced.  You give a timeline, a spectrum stretching from a vicious "education" film from your youth through to the very accepting 2013/4 TV series "Looking."
2) The negative movie examples I gave are hopelessly dated, and thus no longer relevant.
3) You turn to what the focus of my anger is--what the mainstream may think of these portrayals whether they are relevant or not.
4) And you conclude that it doesn't really matter because such portrayals do not make anyone more homophobic anyway, the worst it will do is just reinforce existing prejudices.

Is this a fair summary?  If so, may I look at these questions more closely?  Problems emerge.

Regarding the first 2 points I am ambivalent.  I cannot deny that LGBT portrayals have become more realistic over the years,  just as the portrayal of blacks has come a long way from Birth of a Nation, or of women from the ditzy dumb-blondes of 30's comedies.  Nevertheless, and I emphasize this, with advances in media technology, old movies (and to a lesser extent old TV shows) are just as likely to show up on television--perhaps even more likely--  because they are cheaper to run, and I doubt that most viewers discriminate between what represents an outdated viewpoint, and one that is current.  They are just "there" in a timeless television Now, and are as free to work their destructive magic on the viewers' minds as they were before.

I don't think it would be helpful to provide  list of gay-theme movies I object to.  We know they are there, and continue to see them on screen.  And often it is just one character per movie acting out the stereotypical faggot or dyke in an otherwise straight story.  These hurt too.  (I can think of one counterexample to my point--Cher's lesbian character in Silkwood.)  Besides the fact that supposedly outdated movies are still very much with us, notice too that TV series and movies showing LGBT life as something to be enjoyed, even celebrated, rather than endured or ridiculed, appear on specialty channels like HBO, Showtime, and OUTtv--safely away from the eyes of most who might risk changing their mind if they watched them.

It is difficult for me to point to specific examples of TV shows in the US that you have seen, because Canadian TV is perhaps behind US television in when we see a particular show, if at all.  And we have our own shows that may not reach US audiences.  I just don't know.  The brother/uncle in Good Wife seems OK.  I have no idea how LGBTs are treated in magazine shows like Rosie O'Donnell or Ellen DeGeneres.  1Girl 5 Gays is my pet hate up here--and Homorazzi.  Now the Big Bang Theory:  They never utter the word "gay," but that is the most disgusting parody of a gay man (well, of most of the male characters) I have seen.  Geez, Mary, butch it up just a little!

I can't believe that one would suggest that the stereotypical LGBT portrayals are not there, even if they have changed from being psychopathic to slightly less dangerous figures.  This brings me to the 3rd and 4th questions.  Basically, what effect do these portrayals have, and whom do they have an effect on?  I have to begin with something that I know will press your buttons, but I have to. 

... think of gay people as funny agreeable folks to invite into their living rooms once a week. It might have made gay men look silly, but it didn't make them look ominous or deviant or horrible.

I know you don't mean it that way, but consider how these words sound to LGBTs.  We don't want to be "funny agreeable silly folks to invite into ones living rooms once a week."  These are just the kind of words I remember hearing from enlightened people in the 1950's about "Step-'n-Fetch-It/Amos and Andy blacks.  As I remember blacks were not very amused by it at the time, then came to send it up with biting humour.  This, in turn, reminds me of Queer as Folk.  I am, it seems, the only fan of QAF in BetterMost, but I want to cite one example from it:  Two of the main characters, gay, buy a house in the straight suburbs.  They are immediately invited to meet the liberal neighbours at a cocktail party, and basically, to "entertain the white folks."  The scene is a cleverly cruel parody, and terribly funny.  I used to get very angry about this kind of thing, now I think humour is the best way of dealing with it.

[quote author=serious crayons link=topic=51966.msg654904#msg654904 date=13911790 Those attitudes aren't shaped by problematic portrayals out of Hollywood. They're shaped by conservative religions and ancient prejudices and ignorance, none of which stem from Western entertainment products[/quote]

I agree with you here that the roots of prejudice lie in conservative religious and ancient prejudices.  They may not "stem from" Western entertainment, but they do, whether in NA or in the rest of the world, derive energy from those prejudices being played out on the screen.  In Canada and Western Europe the battle has been largely won, and we must be grateful for that.  In the US the battle is slower.  (I suspect this may be due to your Constitution giving all "residual rights" not specifically given to the Federal Government to the States, so that human rights issues have to be fought out state by state.  In Canada, residual rights revert to the Federal Government, so issues like equal marriage and other sexual freedoms are dealt with all at once by Ottawa.)  It is slower in the US, but your main point--that it is indeed moving, and perhaps faster than anyone would have dreamed in spite of dubious media portrayals of LGBTs, I don't deny, although I am impatient for LGBT rights everywhere.

What I want to get across is that homophobic outrages do not necessarily begin with someone seeing a LGBT being depicted as dangerous, criminal, psychopathic perverts.  All that is necessary is for us to be viewed as people not to be taken seriously, to be discounted, to be "light in the loafers" as the anti-gay saying goes.  This is how it starts.  This makes us "other."  As we know from sociology, to be "other" leads to attempts to bring us into the fold, and when that doesn't work, it leads to isolation and exclusion.  (Sound familiar?)  Apply this paradigm to the LGBT situation worldwide, and it fits ominously well.

This brings me to the question of whom does stereotypical portrayals of LGBTs affect anyway?  You will tell me that my paradigm does not fit America.  I wonder if, in your posting, you were doing something you used to accuse me of doing--slipping in a change of point of view and then proceeding as if it had been there all along.  Isn't that what you were doing when you suddenly switched from talking about the "mainstream" world to the US mainstream?  There is a big difference between the situation in, say, Africa or Brazil, and the situation for LGBTs in America, I will in a moment suggest that homophobia in America is at least partially responsible for the horrors in Africa and Brazil (and other places).  I would agree with you that the paradigm of discounting to otherness to isolation and then exclusion seems to be working in reverse in the US.  Well, it is amongst certain parts of the population, not all, and that's the problem.

I suggest that in NA such things as the Matthew Shephard case and those like it, media depictions of LGBT people do play a part in feeding into the basic insecurity some people, especially some straight young men feel about their own sexuality, and give licence for them to torture, maim, and kill those who are, of course, just what they secretly fear in themselves.  Thus I am not as willing as you are to let "harmless" examples of media homophobia go by.  I know where it can and does lead.  Tied into this is my final point ("At last," I hear you sigh.)  that media-reinforced LGBT stereotyping in the US does affect the situations in Central Africa and Brazil.  I am talking about the fact that the anti-gay frenzy in Africa and Brazil is being caused and promoted by evangelical missionaries from the US.  The clergyman who was instrumental in getting Uganda to introduce life-imprisonment for being gay acknowledged his role proudly, but did say that a life sentence was perhaps a bit harsh.  These religious crazies are for certain working out of "conservative religions and ancient  prejudices," but they are the ones who saw the movies you suggest are "outdated" and saw them as "suspicions confirmed."

You will probably tell me to lighten up, to be glad my own country is as enlightened as it is, and that NA and my cultural world are making great advances in LGBT rights  It's just that every night on the news I see increasing LGBT oppression and suffering around the world.

BTW:
Any of you who have seen my postings in the past may have noticed that I no longer use the word "gay" so universally, but have switched to LGBT.  I have always been focused on and aware of the "G" but the rest of the alphabet never meant anything to me.  Then a few months ago I began subscribing to OUTtv, Canada's only LGBT television channel.  With the programs there, especially some excellent documentaries, I suddenly became aware of the LBT part.  I learned that their problems and struggles were the same as mine,however different our lifestyles might be.  So I throw in my lot with them, and from now on it is LGBT where appropriate.  I am not suggesting this is more politically correct, or that anyone else should follow me--but it is right for me.

SC, the way you referenced "Looking" was cute.  I wonder, in my "review" of it, who came off sounding more trashy--the show or me?  I hope it was me.

[serious crayons]

Before I look at your points individually, I suggest that your argument in your last posting is something like this:  If we aren't talking about DBC then what ARE we talking about?  This is a sort of rhetorical question based on 4 points:
1) LGBT portrayals in the media have advanced.  You give a timeline, a spectrum stretching from a vicious "education" film from your youth through to the very accepting 2013/4 TV series "Looking."
2) The negative movie examples I gave are hopelessly dated, and thus no longer relevant.
3) You turn to what the focus of my anger is--what the mainstream may think of these portrayals whether they are relevant or not.
4) And you conclude that it doesn't really matter because such portrayals do not make anyone more homophobic anyway, the worst it will do is just reinforce existing prejudices.

Is this a fair summary?

Yes, pretty fair! 

Regarding the first 2 points I am ambivalent.  I cannot deny that LGBT portrayals have become more realistic over the years,  just as the portrayal of blacks has come a long way from Birth of a Nation, or of women from the ditzy dumb-blondes of 30's comedies.  Nevertheless, and I emphasize this, with advances in media technology, old movies (and to a lesser extent old TV shows) are just as likely to show up on television--perhaps even more likely--  because they are cheaper to run,

Good point. I don't normally watch random TV, like whatever old movies and shows happen to be on when I turn on the set (I only watch specific pre-planned things), so I hadn't thought of this.

and I doubt that most viewers discriminate between what represents an outdated viewpoint, and one that is current. 

I would disagree with this. I think the average mainstream viewer (in NA or Europe) is sophisticated enough to tell the difference, and even to realize that old depictions of gay people are dated or no longer socially acceptable. And yes, I even think even most homophobic viewers call tell the difference, even if they're alarmed about current sympathetic portrayals like BBM or Milk or Looking.

I don't think it would be helpful to provide  list of gay-theme movies I object to.  We know they are there, and continue to see them on screen. 

I wasn't demanding that you provide an exhaustive list, just enough that we could discuss specific examples rather than vague and hypothetical ones. Without much else to go on, I'm going to have to reference Will and Grace a lot.

notice too that TV series and movies showing LGBT life as something to be enjoyed, even celebrated, rather than endured or ridiculed, appear on specialty channels like HBO, Showtime, and OUTtv--safely away from the eyes of most who might risk changing their mind if they watched them.

You know, I bet plenty of homophobes subscribe to HBO. True, premium channels or even basic cable channels (and don't forget Netflix) do not command the audiences that the major networks do. But aside from their monthly cost drawing a slightly higher-income audience, I don't think they necessarily discriminate between the liberal and conservative, the well-educated and the average, the sophisticated and the provincial. And I certainly don't think there's any deliberate attempt by anyone to keep LGBT-friendly series "away from the eyes" of the mainstream. I think there's just more willingness to take risks because they don't need to appeal to large audiences.

However, I will say that NBC had a show (just canceled) starring Sean Hayes playing a gay man. As far as I know, it wasn't particularly offensive -- I saw one episode -- though it wasn't very good. But then, neither is the one starring Michael J. Fox as a straight man. Most sitcoms are bad.

I have no idea how LGBTs are treated in magazine shows like Rosie O'Donnell or Ellen DeGeneres.

Um, I do, and that's without even watching those shows. The fact that two popular talk show hosts are themselves out lesbians is, I think, a pretty telling comment on the relative open-mindedness of the extremely mainstream audiences that those shows draw. And I have no idea what Ellen discusses with her LGBT guests, but obviously she's hugely popular and something of an advocate, or at least an admired icon, for the LGBT community.

I can't believe that one would suggest that the stereotypical LGBT portrayals are not there, even if they have changed from being psychopathic to slightly less dangerous figures.

I don't know. I don't watch that much popular mainstream TV, which is why I asked you what ones you object to. I do know I've seen a lot of pretty popular movies and shows -- from Brokeback Mountain to Milk to Mad Men to Orange Is the New Black -- with nuanced, three-dimensional gay characters.

We don't want to be "funny agreeable silly folks to invite into ones living rooms once a week."

Of course you don't, which is why I acknowledged that WaG was problematic. I was simply saying it was an improvement at the time over what had come before it. And more importantly, that it didn't seem like a show that would make anyone MORE homophobic than they already were. If a member of, say, the Westboro Baptist Church were to get enraged about WaG, it wouldn't be because they formerly felt that gays were fine but now realized they were silly and objectionable, it would be because they don't think the media should be embracing gay characters at all and the fact that a show starred gay people would be one more bit of evidence, to them, that Hollywood is a den of iniquity.

In Canada and Western Europe the battle has been largely won, and we must be grateful for that.  In the US the battle is slower.  (I suspect this may be due to your Constitution giving all "residual rights" not specifically given to the Federal Government to the States, so that human rights issues have to be fought out state by state.

I think you're right about this.

What I want to get across is that homophobic outrages do not necessarily begin with someone seeing a LGBT being depicted as dangerous, criminal, psychopathic perverts.  All that is necessary is for us to be viewed as people not to be taken seriously, to be discounted, to be "light in the loafers" as the anti-gay saying goes.  This is how it starts.  This makes us "other."  As we know from sociology, to be "other" leads to attempts to bring us into the fold, and when that doesn't work, it leads to isolation and exclusion.  (Sound familiar?)  Apply this paradigm to the LGBT situation worldwide, and it fits ominously well.

OK, but worldwide I'd still need more convincing that this can be blamed on poor Will and Grace. To the extent that attitudes are getting worse in some parts of the world, I think it has more to do with people in those cultures getting more conservative and religious, period. The same would apply to treatment of women, BTW -- either it was always as bad as it is now, whether we thought about it or not, or it actually is getting worse because the cultures are getting more conservative and intolerant in general. If depictions of gays in entertainment media are a factor at all, it's more about those cultures (like the Westboro Baptist referenced above) saying, "Look at the debauched West and their open celebration of sinners" or whatever. In which case, they could be pointing to anything from BBM to WaG to Looking.

This brings me to the question of whom does stereotypical portrayals of LGBTs affect anyway?  You will tell me that my paradigm does not fit America.  I wonder if, in your posting, you were doing something you used to accuse me of doing--slipping in a change of point of view and then proceeding as if it had been there all along.  Isn't that what you were doing when you suddenly switched from talking about the "mainstream" world to the US mainstream? 

I may have. That's either because like a typical American I'm UScentric  , or because we can either talk about Iran and Russia or we can talk about the U.S., but we can't very well talk about all of them at once as if they exhibited the same patterns because they're so different. The Utah Jazz coach's remark about BBM, disgusting though it was (and again, in that case the "mainstream" apparently agreed that it was bad or it wouldn't have been newsworthy in the first place), is hardly comparable to a government-sanctioned death penalty for homosexuality. And people outside of NA don't have the same kind of access to Hollywood products, so if they are influenced by them at all it would be in different ways.

There is a big difference between the situation in, say, Africa or Brazil, and the situation for LGBTs in America,

Right, exactly.

I suggest that in NA such things as the Matthew Shephard case and those like it, media depictions of LGBT people do play a part in feeding into the basic insecurity some people, especially some straight young men feel about their own sexuality, and give licence for them to torture, maim, and kill those who are, of course, just what they secretly fear in themselves.  Thus I am not as willing as you are to let "harmless" examples of media homophobia go by.  I know where it can and does lead.

I am not convinced that Matthew Shephard's murderers or others who attack gay people are responding to media depictions. Could you describe a scenario in which someone who previously wasn't inclined to attack gays becomes motivated to do so by watching Will and Grace (or whatever)? I think of that kind of hatred as a mixture of internal problems (whatever motivates people to bully in the first place, plus possible repressed homosexuality) and cultural influences -- not so much media depictions as family and community attitudes. To the extent that watching gay people onscreen turns people violent, I think they could as easily react that way to Milk or BBM as they do to Will and Grace -- again (see above) responding to the fact that they're onscreen at all.

Sorry to keep picking on WaG, but you haven't given me much more to go on beyond that and, I guess, some character on Big Bang Theory (which I've never seen).

  Tied into this is my final point ("At last," I hear you sigh.)

 

  that media-reinforced LGBT stereotyping in the US does affect the situations in Central Africa and Brazil.  I am talking about the fact that the anti-gay frenzy in Africa and Brazil is being caused and promoted by evangelical missionaries from the US.  The clergyman who was instrumental in getting Uganda to introduce life-imprisonment for being gay acknowledged his role proudly, but did say that a life sentence was perhaps a bit harsh.  These religious crazies are for certain working out of "conservative religions and ancient  prejudices," but they are the ones who saw the movies you suggest are "outdated" and saw them as "suspicions confirmed."

Well, that's a good point. But I would say the same thing to this as I said about the murderers above -- the extent to which their attitudes are shaped by media depictions, even dated ones, is pretty minimal. At worst, those depictions reinforce existing prejudices. But they don't create new ones out of nothing.

You will probably tell me to lighten up, to be glad my own country is as enlightened as it is, and that NA and my cultural world are making great advances in LGBT rights  It's just that every night on the news I see increasing LGBT oppression and suffering around the world.

Are they increasing, though? And to the extent they are, how much can really be blamed on unflattering media portraits? I think it might be useful to remember that we also see oppression and suffering among women around the world. But I don't think that's because of anyone watching old I Love Lucy episodes (or whatever). I think it's because a) to some extent the oppression and suffering have always existed, but as the West gets more enlightened about sexual orientation and gender the media are getting better at informing us of problems and b) to the extent that oppression and suffering are getting worse, it's because of much larger political and religious forces that don't really have all that much to do with Hollywood-generated stereotypes.

SC, the way you referenced "Looking" was cute.  I wonder, in my "review" of it, who came off sounding more trashy--the show or me?  I hope it was me.

I'm sorry, I haven't seen your review! 

[x-man]

Why don't we bring this conversation round to getting out in the open the issue we have so far not spoken of?  For the most part I stand by the points I have made, but I must look at the intensity with which I press them.  This is because the central issue here is not whether or not my examples of bad portrayals of LGBT characters are outdated--but the fact that  I am outdated:  I am examining this question through lenses far older than those employed by the rest of you.  And that makes all the difference.

I first realized I was gay when I was 8 in 1946, although I couldn't put it into those words at the time.  High school was in a small town, '50 to '56.  Believe me, high school in the '50s was not "Grease," more "Last Picture Show."  It wasn't a great time for straight kids either, but for LGBTs it was a nightmare.  You have all heard the stories of how it was then for us in the bad old days--no need to run them by you again.  But I ask you consider not what it was like at the time, but the fears, insecurities, doubts--usually beginning with self-loathing--that were not easily jettisoned, but endured.  And the "wonderful" decades that followed--for LGBTs the possibility and reality of ostracism, job loss, even imprisonment if outed.  Times did change, here, but hearts and memories do not change so easily.  

Our conversation here may take on the character of a "glass-half-empty/half-full."  I want to let you know why for me it always seems to be half empty.  I wish it were not that way, but this is why I fear that the homophobic terrors in other parts of the world will spread to engulf NA; it is why I secretly fear that the sexual equality laws and attitudes of even my own country might quickly change, and the bad old days return.  That is why I brought up the comparison between LGBTs and Jews in Nazi Germany.  "Oh, it couldn't happen here, now."  But it did.  Mine are fears and paranoia that will probably always colour my thinking no matter how much I try to rid myself of them.

For people like me, vicious or stereotypical portrayals of us are beyond reason in confronting.  They awaken emotions we thought had been put away for good.  To my younger LGBT brothers and sisters: be very grateful you have been spared this.

[milomorris]

The problems being faced by sexual minorities in Africa are old and deep.

To begin with, many people in African countries still have opinions of gender roles that are informed by ancient tribal standards. Add to that the spread of Islam across the continent which brough a religious prohibition on homosexuality. That was followed by a few centuries of European colonization, which brought new religions to the continent with prohibitions. Anything a handful of American evangelicals has contributed to homophobia across Africa amounts to little more than a nod of approval.

[x-man]

Serious crayons, I am sure you understand where I am coming from, but perhaps I need to say to some others that while I stick to my points in principle, I recognize that your underlying argument is valid, and quantitatively--if not qualitatively--I must agree with you.  My posting was to explain why my position held me so tenaciously.  We both know there is no need to prolong the individual points in the debate.  These lines from Melville pretty well say it all for me:

From "Redburn: His First Voyage" by Herman Melville 1849, Chapter 2

Talk not of the bitterness of middle-age and after life; a boy can feel all that, and much more, when upon his young soul the mildew has fallen; and the fruit, which with others is only blasted after ripeness, with him is nipped in the first blossom and bud. And never again can such blights be made good; they strike in too deep, and leave such a scar that the air of Paradise might not erase it. And it is a hard and cruel thing thus in early youth to taste beforehand the pangs which should be reserved for the stout time of manhood, when the gristle has become bone, and we stand up and fight out our lives, as a thing tried before and foreseen; for then we are veterans used to sieges and battles, and not green recruits, recoiling at the first shock of the encounter.

 

[serious crayons]

Our conversation here may take on the character of a "glass-half-empty/half-full."  I want to let you know why for me it always seems to be half empty.  I wish it were not that way, but this is why I fear that the homophobic terrors in other parts of the world will spread to engulf NA; it is why I secretly fear that the sexual equality laws and attitudes of even my own country might quickly change, and the bad old days return.  That is why I brought up the comparison between LGBTs and Jews in Nazi Germany.  "Oh, it couldn't happen here, now."  But it did.  Mine are fears and paranoia that will probably always colour my thinking no matter how much I try to rid myself of them.

Well, that makes sense. Part of the genius of the U.S. Constitution and the ideas that formed it is that they keep pushing us to do better (sorry to be so UScentric, but I'm just much more familiar with historical precedent here, but in terms of these issues I think Canada is on a parallel if more advanced path and was never quite as bad in the first place). That's why the 20th century was better for ethnic minorities and women than the 19th century was, and why the late 20th was better than the early 20th, and why so far the 21st is better than the late 20th. I obviously can't dismiss the possibility that things could take a turn for the worse here, for gays or any other minority or even for women. History is no guarantee of anything, and minorities of any kind will always be in a riskier position than majorities.

But when you see real progress happening before your eyes -- too slowly, I agree, which is understandably infuriating, but still -- it seems reasonable to accept it for what it is, and not to borrow trouble worrying about the possibility of something that's not even on the most distant horizon. It's like people who go around fretting that the United States is going to adopt sharia law. Oh really? And what signs do you see of that?

In fact, if anything I think people here react so negatively to those reports of homophobia elsewhere in the world that they become MORE open-minded and tolerant in reaction to them. I'm no historian, but I think it's possible that the horrors of the holocaust turned people here less anti-Semitic. I think American homophobes, having been socialized with ideas about human rights along with whatever homophobic socializing they experienced, probably want to distance themselves from what are obviously unacceptable attitudes in Russia and Africa.

For people like me, vicious or stereotypical portrayals of us are beyond reason in confronting.  They awaken emotions we thought had been put away for good.  To my younger LGBT brothers and sisters: be very grateful you have been spared this.

Well, I can understand why you would react that way to "vicious or stereotypical portrayals." I would think younger LGBT people would, too, if not as viscerally. But again, it's not so much that your attitudes are dated as that your examples are. Jared Leto's character in "Dallas Buyer's Club" is not particularly vicious or stereotypical, in my opinion. "Will and Grace" isn't vicious, and though it is stereotypical, it's pretty benignly so, wouldn't you say? I mean, the men were very popular with audiences. Sean Hayes just got his own show (though canceled, because frankly I saw one episode and it was terrible, but he did play a three-dimensional gay man). That's more than you can say for any of the show's straight actors or characters.

We both know there is no need to prolong the individual points in the debate.  These lines from Melville pretty well say it all for me:

Fair enough. I do think we're more or less in agreement.

Talk not of the bitterness of middle-age and after life; a boy can feel all that, and much more, when upon his young soul the mildew has fallen; and the fruit, which with others is only blasted after ripeness, with him is nipped in the first blossom and bud. And never again can such blights be made good; they strike in too deep, and leave such a scar that the air of Paradise might not erase it. And it is a hard and cruel thing thus in early youth to taste beforehand the pangs which should be reserved for the stout time of manhood, when the gristle has become bone, and we stand up and fight out our lives, as a thing tried before and foreseen; for then we are veterans used to sieges and battles, and not green recruits, recoiling at the first shock of the encounter.

Herman Melville would never make it on Twitter.   

But that's an interesting paragraph. I had to read it a few times (it would take me forever to get through the whole book), but once I did I realized it's quite profound, if a bit bleak.

[Jeff Wrangler]

I obviously can't dismiss the possibility that things could take a turn for the worse here, for gays or any other minority or even for women. History is no guarantee of anything, and minorities of any kind will always be in a riskier position than majorities.

Of course History has shown us that things can take a turn for the worse, and pretty quickly, too. The assimilated Jews of Germany in the 1930s are the obvious example that comes immediately to mind.

Just sayin'. ...

"Will and Grace" isn't vicious, and though it is stereotypical, it's pretty benignly so, wouldn't you say? I mean, the men were very popular with audiences.

Whatever one might say about Will and Grace, it wasn't The Boys in the Band.

[x-man]

I just watched Dallas Buyers Club.  (It didn't occur to me until today that it would be on iTunes.)  Now I see what serious crayons was talking about, and why she put it as a special topic site.

It was for me  a very difficult film to watch.  It took me back to the bad old days before antiretrovirals etc., had come on the scene, and when HIV was an automatic death sentence.  It took me back to my work with Toronto's People With Aids, when I was around a group of people being resourceful and yet as open and compassionate and cheerful as possible to everyone else under the same sentence.

DBC does indeed show people, LGBTs amongst them, with "warts and all."  It is certainly a look back, but not done in an offensive way at all.  Homophobia or stereotypical portrayals of LGBTs (except for the indifference on a governmental level) has nothing to do with the film.  If you have not seen this film, you must.  Thank you serious crayons for bringing this to our (my) attention.  I should never have moved the discussion away from the film so quickly; I am sorry.  And again, everybody, watch this movie.

[serious crayons]

Sounds like this guy more or less agrees with you. If you go to the article, you can click on links.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/02/28/_does_dallas_buyers_club_deserve_oscars_for_trans_and_queer_representations.html?wpisrc=hpsponsoredd2

Dallas Buyers Club Is a Great Queer Movie ... So Why Are So Many Criticizing It?
By J. Bryan Lowder

When I first saw Dallas Buyers Club back in October, my screening companion and I (both of us queer) went in with a fair amount of trepidation: On paper, the movie seemed like the kind of thing you might call “problematic.” For starters, DBC, which tells the true story of Ron Woodroof’s founding of an buyers club from which AIDS sufferers could purchase unapproved drugs, approaches the crisis from a homophobic straight man’s point-of-view—a risky, though not categorically bad, choice.* And then there’s Rayon, a composite transgender character who acts as Woodroof’s unlikely business partner. Obviously, trans representation remains a fraught exercise given the group’s history of being played for disgust or laughs, and casting a cisgender actor—especially a rather inarticulate one like Jared Leto—in the role didn’t bode well.

However, as the film went on, we were won over; so much so that by the end I was convinced that DBC was one of the best queer films I had ever seen.

That specific opinion, it's worth noting, was not widely shared. While mainstream critics have generally praised the film—so much so that it’s up for six Academy Awards, including Matthew McConaughey for Woodroof and Leto in the Supporting Actor category—criticism in queerland has been less glowing. A handful of writers have condemned Leto’s portrayal of Rayon as offensive or “pandering,” and others have taken issue with the very existence of an AIDS film that focuses on a straight person. As writing about the movie has ramped up in anticipation of Sunday night’s Oscar ceremony, these and other critiques have returned with such vigor that I’ve started to wonder if we’re talking about the same movie.

So this week, I watched DBC again: I remain convinced that it is not only a good film in general, but also one that is “good for the community” in ways both obvious and subtle. In fact, I think DBC is so good on queer issues that I’m beginning to suspect that it’s the assumptions and motives of the detractors that are problematic. A few questions for those folks: 

Does the AIDS crisis “belong” only to gay people?

As I wrote back in November, the “but-it’s-about-a-straight-man!” objection is misguided both artistically and politically. That’s like saying filmmakers should only make holocaust movies that focus solely on the Jews; just as artists should be “allowed” to cover the homosexuals, Communists, and disabled people who were murdered as part of that atrocity, so too should they be encouraged to engage with the (ongoing) AIDS crisis through the eyes of drug users, women of color, and, indeed, straight people.  If the goal is to use art to try to comprehend these tragedies as best we can, shouldn’t we welcome as many angles as possible?

And anyway, if you really felt that DBC was only about a prejudiced straight man’s journey to redemption (a weird description in the first place, given that Woodroof’s “growth” in terms of LGBTQ tolerance is entirely mediated by business concerns), you weren’t paying attention. While the film is clearly a character study at heart, it does a fine job evoking the larger historical context through subtle, well-curated references. And to the movie’s credit, these are very much in keeping with the spotty collage of news footage, headlines, study results, and personal interactions that a politically apathetic pharmaceutical business owner would likely assemble during a time like this. The demand that DBC, a work of historical fiction, somehow be a gay-focused documentary is baffling.

What makes a movie “gay enough”?

While DBC may not be an overtly gay movie (in that it’s not Angels in America, I guess?), it’s absolutely queer. I cannot for the life of me understand how a viewer interested in queer representation could watch this film and not come away excited by the wonderfully strange love story it presents in the relationship between Woodroof and Rayon. Here we have two messy, wounded human beings who become partners in life and business in spite of all the prejudices—on both sides—that could have kept them apart. They look out for each other physically, financially, and, in their own way, emotionally. Their shared respect for one another’s street savvy—demonstrated beautifully in the early gambling scene—forms a bond that, while not romantic or sexual in nature, still looks a lot like love. When Rayon puts herself through the trauma of visiting her father to cash out her life insurance policy, or when Woodroof risks arrest to attack the doctor he holds responsible for Rayon’s eventual death, these are the rash and sacrificial actions of people who—in some fantastic, queer way—love each other more than themselves. 

Even if you don’t buy that interpretation of DBC’s central relationship, a number of other queer values are clearly on display: the struggle to create alternative, ad-hoc family structures, the need to hack hostile bureaucratic institutions for survival, the experience of being rejected by friends and family because of something in your blood—these themes are all handled here with nuance and care. If you are still searching for a “gayer” AIDS movie, I humbly suggest that you reconsider your criteria. 

What does a “good” transgender person look like? 

As I mentioned before, a number of critics have found fault with Rayon precisely for the messiness that made her and Woodroof such a convincing pair. Before we consider the character, though, I want to deal with the part of this hate that’s coming from those who just dislike Leto as a person, or (and this is a feeling I share) those who have found his comments regarding the role regrettable: It should go without saying that neither of those things is relevant in evaluating (or in rewarding) his performance. 

Unfortunately, a disturbing amount of Rayon-bashing remains even after those groups are excluded. Here’s an upsetting example, from Steve Friess in Time: “What did the writers of Dallas Buyers Club and Leto as her portrayer decide to make Rayon? Why, she’s a sad-sack, clothes-obsessed, constantly flirting transgender drug addict prostitute, of course.” He also dismisses her as “sassy,”  “tragic-yet-silly,” and a “victimized dingbat.” 

These words not only betray a frightening lack of compassion on the part of its author; they also are the definition of respectability policing. Clearly, Friess and his comrades are of the opinion that the only responsible way to represent transgender people (and presumably other minorities) is as clean-cut, noble exemplars of some politically correct, GLADD-approved ideal. They must have their lives in order and associate with the right people. They must adhere to the terms-of-art and understanding of trans identity that The Movement has rendered unto them. They must be serious, media-trained representatives of their interest group, offended when they are told to be offended, and they must never lighten their struggles with a little dark humor. In a word, they must be respectable. Rayon, apparently, does not qualify. 

Excuse me, but who is Friess or anyone else to deem Rayon inappropriate as a human being? Yes, she’s fictional, but there are absolutely people in this world who are sassy sad-sack drug addicts—do they not deserve to be honored in art, to be cheered when they are selfless and to be mourned when they are lost? I well understand that such representations have a painful history of misuse, but I also refuse to believe that we must abandon them entirely now that we are ostensibly more enlightened. Indeed, as we enter an age where images of LGBTQ people are increasingly welcome, should we not exploit the expanded freedom to recuperate and complicate the “tragic trannies” and “mincing faggots” who have been abused in the past, even as we add more "respectable" figures to the mix? They are, after all, still in the audience, even if Friess would prefer they stayed in the shadows.

And indeed, preferences are what we’re really talking about when we analyze the LGBTQ-related criticisms of DBC—preferences about who can tell certain stories, preferences for what makes a piece of art “count,” preferences for how certain types of people should look and act. My preference? For critics to stop pretending that these judgments are ideologically neutral or ethically self-evident, because they aren’t, and because the vision for queer art they suggest is cramped, boring, and exclusive. If that’s “progress,” I’d rather hang back here with Rayon.

*As Slate revealed in January, there’s evidence that Woodroof may have actually been bisexual. While that revelation raises thorny questions about interview practices and the stories screenwriters choose to tell, DBC is not a documentary—fiction, however based in history, should be allowed some artistic license.

[CellarDweller]

Mathew & Jared won for their rolls in the movie last night, and a meme of Jared with a quote of his speech is making the rounds on the 'net.

[CellarDweller]

Here is the meme I mentioned before.